Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. It is alleged that petitioner was appointed as Assistant teacher in C.T. grade on ad hoc basis on 23rd November, 1987 against short term vacancy caused on account of ad hoc promotion of one Sri Indra Pal Singh Sisodia who was C.T. grade teacher in the institution and promoted on the post of L.T. grade teacher. The petitioner's selection was duly made by Committee of Management of the institution and thereafter, the papers regarding his selection has also been sent to the D.I.O.S., Ghaziabad. Initially the D.I.O.S. has accorded approval on the selection of the petitioner as Assistant teacher in C.T. grade on ad hoc basis in the institution in question. Subsequently by impugned order dated 7.12.1987, contained in Annexure -7 of the writ petition, the D.I.O.S. has communicated the management of the institution that the petitioner's approval dated 23.11.1987 was obtained by forged signature, therefore, he has cancelled the same vide impugned order dated 7.12.1987. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order the petitioner has filed above noted writ petition before this Court. On 25.4.1988 a Division Bench of this Court while entertaining the writ petition and granting time to the Standing Counsel and opposite parties has stayed the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 7.12.1987.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner states that at the strength of the aforesaid interim order the petitioner has been permitted to continue on the post of assistant teacher in C.T. grade and subsequently thereafter he was also promoted on the post of L.T. grade teacher and still, continue as such and also receiving salary regularly month to month. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, since a period of more than 17 years have passed and petitioner is not only continuously working on the aforesaid post of C.T. grade teacher but also promoted on the next higher post and also receiving his salary on the post in question, therefore, the order impugned dated 7.12.1987 has lost its efficacy in given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, on this count also cannot sustain. It is necessary to point out that before cancellation of the aforesaid order of approval the D.I.O.S. did neither hear the management of the institution nor the petitioner and the aforesaid order was passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Besides, this factum of existence of vacancy on which the petitioner appointed and his due selection and appointment thereon is also not in dispute, thus in given facts and circumstances of the case, there was no occasion for D.I.O.S. to disapprove the appointment of petitioner. Thus the order cancelling his alleged approval without hearing the management and petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Before parting with the issue, it is also necessary to point out that learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case was dismissed in default due to which the respondents did not pay the salary of the petitioner from December 2004 to June 2005 and consequently on restoration of the writ petition the petitioner is also entitled for. his salary for the aforesaid period though he had been continuously working as Assistant Teacher, therefore, the D.I.O.S. Ghaziabad is directed to verify from the record of the intuition as to whether the petitioner has Actually worked in the aforesaid period as assistant teacher or not. If it is found that he is continuously working on the aforesaid post including the aforesaid period, his arrears of salary for the aforesaid period shall also be paid to him and he shall not be deprived of his salary on account of dismissal of writ petition in default, which was subsequently restored by this Court.
(3.) IN the result, the petition succeeds and the appointment of petitioner shall be treated to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of law and petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits of service on the post in question in the institution. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition succeeds and allowed.;